Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by K-Swiss Inc., against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of a figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on an appeal against the dismissal of a challenge to the grant of planning permission for two wind turbines, held, among other things, that the present was one of those rare cases in which cross-examination had been necessary for justice both to be done and to be seen to be done. The judge had approached the question of cross-examination in a way that had been wrong in principle. The appeal would be allowed to the extent indicated and the case would be remitted to the Administrative Court. 

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The Chancery Division gave judgment in the sum of £727,113.78 against the first defendant on a claim alleging that he, in the course of providing accountancy services for the claimant, had obtained substantial sums of money from the claimant's business and had failed to account for those sums. Among other orders, a declaration was made that the first defendant had received that sum as a constructive trustee on trust for the claimant. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed the applicant, the son of the patient to become her deputy for property and affairs in place of the local authority on the basis that it was in the patient's best interests that her son manage her affairs. The court proposed to put in place safeguards in order to control any conflict of interest. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's application to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State, allowing the second defendant's appeal against the refusal of planning permission for 121 dwellings. The inspector's decision letter demonstrated a series of errors in his approach to saved policies. 

Marriage – Forced marriage. The Family Division, in an application by the local authority initially under a Forced Marriage Protection Order under pt 4 A of the Family Law Act 1996, but eventually in the inherent jurisdiction of the court held in respect of RS, that he did not have capacity to consent to marriage or sexual relations and the court had to exercise its discretion to decide whether to declare his marriage in Pakistan invalid. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal of S against a civil recovery order made in respect of two properties. It held, among other things, that there was no proper basis for concluding that, on the facts, a recovery order in respect of the properties would violate S's rights under art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Such an order would not be disproportionate to the legislative aim and would not produce an unfair balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of S's fundamental rights or cast on her an excessive burden. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division granted applications by three Cayman companies against an individual, T, who was resident in England, for an order under s 426(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, to render assistance to the Grand Court of the Cayman and its joint official liquidators, and a freezing order against T. 

Inheritance – Loss of prospect of inheritance. The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the claimant, who had been found guilty of the manslaughter of his mother, to inherit his mother's estate, as justice did not require modification of the forfeiture rule. However, the court held that the forfeiture rule had no application to any interest presently or in future created under two trusts relating to his mother's home. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for the modification and continuation of a freezing order made against the first defendant, F, and the second defendant company, which he controlled. The court held that the order was permitted by the equitable jurisdiction. It was in the interests of justice that information obtained about alleged misconduct by F would be usable in disciplinary proceedings against him.